Some Things They Just Don't Get

There's a big article in Politico today about how President Trump is planning to impose major tariffs on Chinese products in response to Chinese theft of US intellectual property, among other things.  Politico makes the point that such tariffs could be disastrous for American farmers if China retaliates against American agricultural products like soybeans, corn and wheat.  That's just ignorant.

There is no question that the Chinese will retaliate should the USA put tariffs on Chinese exports to the USA.  The problem won't be for America's farmers, however.  If China puts tariffs on American grains and beans, it will make food more expensive for the average Chinese family.  It might also reduce the amount of American ag products sold in China.  The one thing it won't do is actually hurt American farmers, however.  The price of soybeans and grains are set by the world market.  If China uses taxes to make Australian grains or Brazilian soybeans more appealing in China than American products, it could even attract those products to China at the expense of American products.  The problem for the Chinese, however, would be that as Brazilian soybeans are pulled into China, that will leave a void in other markets which will be filled by US soybeans.  A company that makes margarine in Italy from soy oil will not care if the soybeans used are Brazilian or American.  If the Brazilian company that now supplies this Italian mill pulls out in order to sell into the Chinese market, there will surely be an American supplier waiting to pick up the business.  The production of soybeans does not change quickly with the price; this year's crop will be the same with or without the supposed Chinese tariffs.  That means that unlike with manufactured goods, tariffs on agricultural products will just shift sales around but will not actually reduce sales.  All those American farmers will sell to Europe or Asia outside China.  They will not get hurt.

Articles like this show the ignorance of many who report on economic issues.  Political reports are particularly ignorant when it comes to economics, and it shows (often).   

Pelosi Tootin the Putin Horn

If you want to understand who the Democrats really are, it's important to take a look at the statements made by Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi regarding Rex Tillerson.

In 2016, when Trump nominated Tillerson as Secretary of State, Pelosi issued a statement which said, in part, the following:

"Choosing an oil executive friendly with Vladimir Putin as Secretary of State sends a disturbing signal about President-elect Trump's priorities.  Rex Tillerson's cozy relationship with the Kremlin is especially alarming in light of his attitude towards sanctions over Russia's aggressive behavior in Europe, while at the same time the President-elect continues to side with Russia over the judgment of the US intelligence community."

Today, when Trump fired Tillerson, Pelosi said this:

"Secretary Tillerson's firing sets a profoundly disturbing precedent in which standing up for our allies against Russian aggression is grounds for a humiliating dismissal.  President Trump's actions show that every official in his Administration is at the mercy of his personal whims and his worship of Putin."

Think about that.  When Tillerson is nominated, Pelosi says he is a Russian pawn, a tool of Vladimir Putin.  15 months later, when Tillerson is fired, Pelosi does a complete about-face and says that Tillerson stood up against Putin and that's why he was fired.  Of course, Pelosi makes no attempt to square the two statements.  Tillerson is either a Russian stooge or a valiant public servant standing up to the Russians.  For Pelosi and the Democrats, the truth doesn't matter; they just want something with which to bash President Trump.  They also want to keep spreading the lie that there is any sort of tie between Trump and Putin.

It's disgusting.

Ex Rex

Rex Tillerson is out at the State Department.  Mike Pompeo will be nominated to be his replacement.  The new head of the CIA will be the current deputy director of that agency and the first woman to head the CIA:  Gina Haspel.  This is a good move by President Trump.  It has been clear for a long time that Trump and Tillerson were not on the same page regarding a host of policy issues.  Pompeo reportedly has done a great job at the CIA, and he will be more likely to change the atmosphere at State where change has always been a dirty word.

The big question to me is whether or not the Senate Democrats will try to stall the nominations so that Pompeo won't be in place in time for the meeting with Kim Jong Un.  I think that under the Vacancies Act, Trump can appoint Pompeo as Acting Secretary of State, but that hopefully will not be necessary so long as the Senate Democrats behave in a responsible manner.  Politics should not interfere with a possible deal with the North Koreans.

Hey! This Is Actual News!

About six hours ago, a motorcade carrying the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority was attacked in Gaza by an IED.  The bomb missed its target, but it damaged two of the vehicles in the motorcade.  The Palestinian Authority announced that it holds Hamas responsible for the attack.

This is big news, so you would think that CBS and NBC and the other mainstream media would cover it, right?  If you thought that, however, you would be wrong.  As of 8:45 this morning, neither or those networks had any mention of the attack on their websites.  Neither did many other media outlets.  I only found mention of it on the ABC News site among all the mainstream media outlets I checked.

Think about that.  Not long ago, Egypt brokered a deal under which the Palestinian Authority (which controls the Palestinian areas of the West Bank) made peace with Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip).  These two had been fighting for the last ten years.  Now, the Palestinian Prime Minister gets attacked in Gaza and the PA, not surprisingly, holds Hamas responsible.  If the two go back to fighting, the already small chances for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians disappear.  One would think that this deserves at least a mention in the mainstream media other than ABC.  But not, the mainstream media is too involved with "issues" like whether there will be protests during President Trump's visit to San Diego today (hint:  there will be some, even if CNN has to manufacture them) or whether or not the end of the House Intelligence Committee investigation (which found no Trump - Russia collusion) was premature even though the committee looked at something like 300,000 documents and questioned something like 80 witnesses.  It's sad.

How Does This Guy Get To Be Called an "Expert"?

Fareed Zakaria is, according to CNN, a foreign policy "expert".  Okay, I know it is CNN, but they still promote him as an expert and publicize his views.  Just in the last day, we learned what this fool -- excuse me, "expert" -- thinks about the planned meeting between President Trump and the North Korean dictator.  Zakaria thinks it is a bad move by the USA.  It supposedly gives Kim Jong Un something that he has wanted for years, a meeting with the president of the USA as an equal.  Zakaria says that American presidents have always refused to meet with the North Korean leader, but President Trump has changed that.  Here's the essence of what Zakaria has to say:

"So what changed this week? It's not clear. The charitable interpretation would be that the South Korean government received assurances that the North was serious about talks to eliminate its arsenal. Let's be clear that North Korea has announced no concessions, no reversal of its arsenal, no denuclearization."

That's Zakaria's "expert" view; now let's consider the actual facts.  North Korea has suspended it's nuclear testing.  North Korea has suspended its missile testing.  North Korea has agreed to stop complaints about joint US - South Korea military exercises.  Each of these three are a major concession.  Indeed, the first two of these concessions are the very ones that President Trump made conditions that North Korea had to satisfy before there could be talks of any sort.  That's another way of say that Zakaria is totally wrong when he says that the NK's announced no concessions.

Now it is true that the North Koreans did not announce that they would denuclearize.  That's the subject for discussion in the talks.  What Zakaria is claiming ought to have happened is the equivalent of a union negotiation with management in which the management agrees to speak to the union representatives only after they first concede that the union will accept whatever the management offers.  That's not how talks are supposed to work.

The truth is that President Trump got major concessions from the North Koreans.  Zakaria on CNN cannot concede that success by Trump, sohe resorts to misstating the facts.  Most people would just call it lying, but that might offend Zakaria, so I'll call it prevarication.  He's no expert; he's just a political hack who is spinning wildly and untruthfully to try to have something negative to say about the President.

Cherokee Liz Says No To DNA

This morning on Fox News Sunday, host John Roberts asked senator Elizabeth Warren if she would take a DNA test to put to rest questions about her heritage.  Warren still claims she is part Native American despite there being no proof of that other than her "high cheekbones".  Warren responded with an answer that lasts a minute and a half but says "NO!"  Warren says she knows who she is and is not going to give that up.

Think about that.  With one test, Warren could establish that she truly is part Native American, could shut up Donald Trump from ever calling her Pocahontas again, could shame all those (like me) who make fun of her for what seems clearly to be a phony claim to minority status, and could establish herself as a true straight shooter.  It would take less than ten seconds to achieve all that, but Warren says no.  The only rational excuse for her conduct is that Warren already knows that she has no Native American ancestry.  She can't take the chance of being exposed as the liar she certainly seems to be.

Advice From Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton warned against the danger of improvising at the upcoming meeting between President Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.  According to Hillary, there aren't enough experienced diplomats to enable the President to have a successful negotiation with Kim.

Think about that.  Obama was president for eight years, and Hillary was Secretary of State for more than half of that time.  In all that time, there was no progress towards stopping the North Korean nuclear weapons and missile programs.  Kim Jong Un and his father before just had a cadre of scientists who built nuclear weapons and designed and built ICBMs all during the Obama/Clinton years.  And during all that time, no doubt Hillary would tell us that there were certainly enough experienced diplomats at the State Department.  Somehow, however, all those experienced diplomats did nothing.

Now we have had President Trump for a little over a year.  He has confronted the North Koreans in ways that would have horrified Obama and Clinton.  For example, President Trump taunted Kim by calling him "little rocket man" and by saying that the US nuclear button was much bigger than the North Korean one.  More important, Trump pressured the Chinese to help confront the NK's; he loaded the area with American military power, and he continually talked about the fact that the US would handle the North Koreans "one way or the other."  It seems to be working, and he did it without all those experienced diplomats whose absence Hillary denounces.

Basically, Hillary Clinton is showing again why it is a good thing that she is not president.  She is upset and concerned because President Trump has approached the North Korean problem in a different way from how it was done for the last 20 years.  We know that the old way was a failure, but that seems not to matter in the least to Hillary.  Even worse, Hillary seems not to care that Trump's new way could possibly be working.  She's still against it.